Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hello all,
Something I hear alot on here { and something I have said myself } Is that Atheists and unbelievers have a real problem with religious folk of any type trying to impose laws based on their religious beliefs into society. Myself, being an unbeliever of any organized religion, also thought this way.
Though, Not to long ago I thought about this for a little while and I now see what I percieve to have been an error in my way of thinking The following quote is what inspired me to start this thread.
Now the question I would like to pose to you is, wouldn't this be the same as a democrat saying to a republican "as a democrat, I don't really care if you are a republican until you choose to attempt to impose what you believe into society" ???
Or for instance, wouldn't it be the same as someone who was pro-life telling somone who was pr-choice that "they didnt care what they believe"......etc. etc. ????
Do you think this is the same? If no, then how not? If yes, than wouldn't this defeat the purpose of a democracy where majority rules? Lastly. isn''t it only fair that the religious get to impose their ideas into our laws if they infact have a mojority?
Religious people dont impose moral laws on others ; thats already been lovingly performed by the moral law Provider, our Creator...lest you think such things can come from non personal materials such as hydrogen gas, helium, rocks, and planets cause by an accidental 'big bang' . Absolute moral laws have always existed whether One realizes it or not and whether One wants them or not ; it is simple to show that absolute moral laws exist by looking at how One EXPECTS them to be applied to Oneself in personal and business dealings involving Others. Everyone of us demands that we be treated with absolute moral laws in tact especially honesty, integrity, fairness, equity, and, in their highest forms. Its just that when it comes to our FREEDOM and entitlement, we want absolute moral laws to be optional as to whether we want to APPLY them in our lifestyle choices . So, therein lies the hypocrisy of 'Dont push (your) morality on me' ( yet darn well expecting all Others TREAT the said person in strict accordance to them ). People want their cake and eat it too.
The bottom line is : No one really wants to live in a world where there is no absolute right from wrong (atheistic moral relativism) because it soon leads to a violation of Ones dignity and intrinsic worth and ultimately, anarchy in society. Ergo, no one including the Irreligious should feel their 'freedom' to live anyway they like in the name of entitlement , is being threatened due to absolute moral laws being revisited. In fact, we should be pushing for them since they are the essential compass for a civil society. The problem today is, apathy among the Masses has overrun morality and high ethicals as a Nation...and all thats lies ahead is a relentless cesspool of moral degradation to which most could care less about .
Religious people dont impose moral laws on others ; thats already been lovingly performed by the moral law Provider, our Creator...lest you think such things can come from non personal materials such as hydrogen gas, helium, rocks, and planets cause by an accidental 'big bang' . Absolute moral laws have always existed whether One realizes it or not and whether One wants them or not ; it is simple to show that absolute moral laws exist by looking at how One EXPECTS them to be applied to Oneself in personal and business dealings involving Others. Everyone of us demands that we be treated with absolute moral laws in tact especially honesty, integrity, fairness, equity, and, in their highest forms. Its just that when it comes to our FREEDOM and entitlement, we want absolute moral laws to be optional as to whether we want to APPLY them in our lifestyle choices . So, therein lies the hypocrisy of 'Dont push (your) morality on me' ( yet darn well expecting all Others TREAT the said person in strict accordance to them ). People want their cake and eat it too.
The bottom line is : No one really wants to live in a world where there is no absolute right from wrong (atheistic moral relativism) because it soon leads to a violation of Ones dignity and intrinsic worth and ultimately, anarchy in society. Ergo, no one including the Irreligious should feel their 'freedom' to live anyway they like in the name of entitlement , is being threatened due to absolute moral laws being revisited. In fact, we should be pushing for them since they are the essential compass for a civil society. The problem today is, apathy among the Masses has overrun morality and high ethicals as a Nation...and all thats lies ahead is a relentless cesspool of moral degradation to which most could care less about .
Good post. While some may view it as somewhat wordy, you've actually laid out the entire dilemma quite clearly and concisely.
Sorry jazzarama . . . as much as the mixed laws may bother your sensibilities . . . if there IS a secular purpose it is completely acceptable to enact into secular law. It is ONLY the purely religious that have no place in secular laws. The implementation of policies by humans seems to be forever plagued by imperfection and fallibility . . . but it is the overall principle that we must strive for. There should be no laws that do not have a secular purpose, period. Whether or not they can be seen to have any other purposes is irrelevant as long as there IS a secular purpose for them.
That's your standard, not the standard used by the USSC. The very case that set the basic standards for constitutionality involved a law the court said Did have a secular purpose. The law was ruled unconstitutional because it created excessive entanglement of government with religion. A secular purpose, yes. Only purely religious, no. Unconstitutional, yes.
Please don't tell me you're implying that the things called out in the 10 commandments wouldn't be considered immoral without Christianity....
IF the ten commandments set the precedent, it seems to me that everything else is merely a cheap imitation.
With respect to the question as to whether or not they could be linked to the predominate world view at the founding of the nation, how can there be any doubt about a link to "religion" and, therefore and by extension, the "imposition of religion." Going by the modern perverse definition of the so called "separation of church and state," how can one arrive at any other conclusion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
I'll go your step-by-step route, if you'd like:
Would you agree that all law is imposition? - Yes, I would agree with that statement.
Would you also agree that all people have a world view (opinions/conclusions about life's ultimate questions)? - Would I agree that ALL people in the world have opinions or conclusions about life's ultimate questions? Not necessarily. I would readily agree that MOST people, even the vast majority, do. Close enough?
If by MOST, you mean to allow for the brain dead, or those nearly so - I'll call it close enough.
Would you agree that elected officials take their individual world views with them when they go to serve in office?
Would you agree that theism and atheism are competing world views?
Sorry Tigetmax . . . there is NEVER any justification for enacting religious prohibitions into secular laws . . . UNLESSONLY purpose is religious it has no business being enacted into secular law, period. "God desires it" . . . is NOT a justification for secular laws. God can take care of enforcing His own laws. Humans have no business trying to enforce God's laws on anyone else but themselves. Anything someone is forced to do under penalty of human sanctions accomplishess nothing that would satisfy God. If it isn't voluntarily done . . . it is pointless for God's purpose . . . which is our spiritual development. there is a strictly secular purpose also involved. IF the
You are seriously in 'OJ' land.
What sort of rant is this? Where did I make any of these assertions?
Here's a suggestion: Keep it simple and reply to my post...either that, or just go ahead and carry on with your usual "drive-by" style antics.
That's your standard, not the standard used by the USSC. The very case that set the basic standards for constitutionality involved a law the court said Did have a secular purpose. The law was ruled unconstitutional because it created excessive entanglement of government with religion. A secular purpose, yes. Only purely religious, no. Unconstitutional, yes.
I cannot excuse or explain our Supreme Court's decisions. I am acknowledge that our system is not perfect and that the decisions rendered on Constitutionality are flawed. I am talking about what the Ideal should be for a free secular society with freedom of religion and speech. I assume that was the intent of the thread. Lawyers and legislators are notorious for entangling all sorts of things especially special interests into their concoctions.
[quote=tigetmax24;20742534]IF the ten commandments set the precedent, it seems to me that everything else is merely a cheap imitation.[quote]
What does this have to do with the question I posted? *What* else is a cheap imitation? I'd argue that the 10 commandments are, at most, a mild expansion of the predominant world view of the people of the area and time when they were written.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
With respect to the question as to whether or not they could be linked to the predominate world view at the founding of the nation, how can there be any doubt about a link to "religion" and, therefore and by extension, the "imposition of religion." Going by the modern perverse definition of the so called "separation of church and state," how can one arrive at any other conclusion?
Is this an attempt to link the 10 commandments to the Constitution of the United States? I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here, honestly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
If by MOST, you mean to allow for the brain dead, or those nearly so - I'll call it close enough.
Would you agree that elected officials take their individual world views with them when they go to serve in office?
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Would you agree that theism and atheism are competing world views?
Hmmm, in what ways? Can you give me some examples? At the root it is no more than a belief, or lack of, in an intelligent creator of some sort. That difference of belief does not ensure a mutually exclusive moral, political or any other type of sensibility between the two groups, IMO.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
